But I fear Daveman is going to shut us down because it's not so much about the original topic of positive race-relations.

That better be tongue-in-cheek or your ass is BANNED!

Do I sense a backstory?

I didn't even realize he'd said that. There's no backstory. But I have noticed that sense Daveman got promoted, some things have taken noticeable changes around here. For better or for worse? It's too soon to judge.

And I assume he's joking. And if he's not, well, I could use the free time .

SCgrad

I don't mind people hating or discriminating against one another. I'd just prefer it were for things that were within people's control.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this, at least with how I am reading it. I think hate or discrimination without justification, whether it be because of race, religion, or anything else is wrong. We all discriminate, choosing one thing/person/idea over another. But the thinking man or woman should not base feelings on one issue. I take issue with athiest hating Christians, Americans hating the French (people specifically, you can hate their govt. as a whole) and so on. The concept of grouping people and using the us against them creddo is a infection that spreads through your mind and causes all sorts of hate. Look at the KKK for example, they hate everyone.

jeb240

I don't mind people hating or discriminating against one another. I'd just prefer it were for things that were within people's control.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this, at least with how I am reading it. I think hate or discrimination without justification, whether it be because of race, religion, or anything else is wrong. We all discriminate, choosing one thing/person/idea over another. But the thinking man or woman should not base feelings on one issue. I take issue with athiest hating Christians, Americans hating the French (people specifically, you can hate their govt. as a whole) and so on. The concept of grouping people and using the us against them creddo is a infection that spreads through your mind and causes all sorts of hate. Look at the KKK for example, they hate everyone.

I don't understand the "but" here. "We all discriminate" and "the thinking man or woman should not bas feelings on one issue" are not at odds, are they? I don't imagine that all Atheists hate all Christians, nor do I assume that all Atheists who hate all Christians are necessarily looking at it from a one-issue pov. Moreover, who am I to say that one issue should not a deciding factor in this or that case.

You can hate me if I'm black because I'm black. I'm okay with that. But don't keep me out of your school or your firm or your country club because of it. People should be allowed to do as they please, up until the point that it directly hurts/impedes others. No, I cannot define hurt. Mill couldn't do it, I'm not going to bother to try. And it's just an LSD post, so please don't attack me with semantic arguments of where what I've just said fails.

I don't mind people hating or discriminating against one another. I'd just prefer it were for things that were within people's control.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this, at least with how I am reading it. I think hate or discrimination without justification, whether it be because of race, religion, or anything else is wrong. We all discriminate, choosing one thing/person/idea over another. But the thinking man or woman should not base feelings on one issue. I take issue with athiest hating Christians, Americans hating the French (people specifically, you can hate their govt. as a whole) and so on. The concept of grouping people and using the us against them creddo is a infection that spreads through your mind and causes all sorts of hate. Look at the KKK for example, they hate everyone.

I don't understand the "but" here. "We all discriminate" and "the thinking man or woman should not bas feelings on one issue" are not at odds, are they? I don't imagine that all Atheists hate all Christians, nor do I assume that all Atheists who hate all Christians are necessarily looking at it from a one-issue pov. Moreover, who am I to say that one issue should not a deciding factor in this or that case.

You can hate me if I'm black because I'm black. I'm okay with that. But don't keep me out of your school or your firm or your country club because of it. People should be allowed to do as they please, up until the point that it directly hurts/impedes others. No, I cannot define hurt. Mill couldn't do it, I'm not going to bother to try. And it's just an LSD post, so please don't attack me with semantic arguments of where what I've just said fails.

I am not trying to argue semantics, that is pointless. I see your point about hating someone verses discrimination. They are different. I agree, if someone hates me for no reason and it has no effect on me, I could care less. It is not good for society as a whole, but altruism is hard to acheive, and if it doesn't affect me, it probably doesn't affect others, too. I was saying people discriminate in the sense that they choose between one thing or another (that is the definition of discriminate), and I think you should do this based on the person as a whole. I doubt any person can be definitively defined by one characteristic. I guess I am talking more about what I think would make the world a better place, altruistic as it may sound.

Logged

jeb240

No, you weren't arguing semantics. I was just throwing that as a catch-all for any dingbat who planned on waltzing over here and trying to smack me down because I gave two lines instead a fully-fledged philosophical treatise on the subject. No, you're cooler than that, worry not.

I don't believe in altruism.

Nor do I believe it's up to me to determine the rules for permission of discrimination (I would agree with you, but I'm sure there are some who would say that until you know a person from insemination 'till death, then you don't know enough to discriminate, but you can't ever do that so then you can't discriminate).

Nor do I believe it's up to me to determine how many characteristics it takes to define a person.

But that's simply what I believe.

Logged

King80s

A study at FSU last May found that people's concerns about racial biases predict how well their interactions with other races go. Overall the study found that in some cases whites were afraid of coming across as racist, and in other cases blacks were afraid of being treated with prejudice. These groups tended to have the worst relations with members of other races. The best interracial relations occured in groups where participants expected interactions to be positive.

The moral of the story? If you're white, don't worry about looking like a racist. If you're black, don't expect to be treated poorly. Expect good things, and good things will happen.

Interesting study. I attended a monastic retreat where the topics of cultural ego and cultural shadows (repressions) were discussed. It sounds like case of errant perceptions based on repressions at the cultural level.

Logged

SCgrad

No, you weren't arguing semantics. I was just throwing that as a catch-all for any dingbat who planned on waltzing over here and trying to smack me down because I gave two lines instead a fully-fledged philosophical treatise on the subject. No, you're cooler than that, worry not.

I don't believe in altruism.

Nor do I believe it's up to me to determine the rules for permission of discrimination (I would agree with you, but I'm sure there are some who would say that until you know a person from insemination 'till death, then you don't know enough to discriminate, but you can't ever do that so then you can't discriminate).

Nor do I believe it's up to me to determine how many characteristics it takes to define a person.